GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 41, No. 7 ( 2023-03-01), p. 1376-1382
    Abstract: Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The combined analysis of SOFT-TEXT compared outcomes in 4,690 premenopausal women with estrogen/progesterone receptor–positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer randomly assigned to 5 years of exemestane + ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen + OFS. After a median follow-up of 9 years, exemestane + OFS significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), but not overall survival, compared with tamoxifen + OFS. We now report DFS, DRFI, and overall survival after a median follow-up of 13 years. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the 12-year DFS (4.6% absolute improvement, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.90; P 〈 .001) and DRFI (1.8% absolute improvement, HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98; P = .03), but not overall survival (90.1% v 89.1%, HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11), continued to be significantly improved for patients assigned exemestane + OFS over tamoxifen + OFS. Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors (86.0% of the ITT population), the absolute improvement in 12-year overall survival with exemestane + OFS was 2.0% (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04) and 3.3% in those who received chemotherapy (45.9% of the ITT population). Overall survival benefit was clinically significant in high-risk patients, eg, women age 〈 35 years (4.0%) and those with 〉 2 cm (4.5%) or grade 3 tumors (5.5%). These sustained reductions of the risk of recurrence with adjuvant exemestane + OFS, compared with tamoxifen + OFS, provide guidance for selecting patients for whom exemestane should be preferred over tamoxifen in the setting of OFS. [Media: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 82, No. 4_Supplement ( 2022-02-15), p. GS2-05-GS2-05
    Abstract: Background The updated combined SOFT+TEXT analysis, after 9 years median follow-up (MFU), revealed that adjuvant E+OFS vs T+OFS significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) but not overall survival (OS) in premenopausal women with HR+ early BC (Francis et al NEJM 2018). Given the high rate of OS in both arms and the long-term risk of relapse in HR+ BC, continued follow-up is key to assessing treatment benefit. We report a planned update analysis including OS with database lock of May 2021, after 13 years MFU.. Methods TEXT and SOFT enrolled premenopausal women with HR+ early BC from November 2003 to April 2011 (2660 in TEXT, 3047 in SOFT intention-to-treat (ITT) populations). TEXT randomized women within 12 weeks of surgery to 5 years E+OFS vs T+OFS; chemotherapy (CT) was optional and concurrent with OFS. SOFT randomized women to 5 years E+OFS vs T+OFS vs T alone, within 12 weeks of surgery if no CT planned, or within 8 months of completing (neo)adjuvant CT. Both trials were stratified by CT use. For the combined analysis of E+OFS vs T+OFS, the primary endpoint was DFS defined as invasive local, regional, distant recurrence, contralateral BC, second malignancy, death. Secondary endpoints included invasive breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), DRFI and OS.. Results: At database lock there were 953 DFS events and 473 deaths among 4690 pts assigned to T+OFS or E+OFS. In the ITT population, DFS, BCFI and DRFI outcomes for pts assigned E+OFS (n=2346) continued to be significantly improved over T+OFS (n=2344). 12-yr DFS was 80.5% vs. 75.9% (4.6% absolute improvement; HR 0.79 95% CI 0.70-0.90), 12-yr BCFI was improved by 4.1% and 12-yr DRFI by 1.8%. At 12 years OS was excellent in both groups, 90.1% in pts assigned E+OFS vs 89.1% in pts assigned T+OFS (HR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). There was heterogeneity of relative treatment effect according to HER2 status. When enrollment commenced, anti-HER2 adjuvant therapy was not standard; 53% of 583 pts with HER2+ tumors received HER2-targeted therapy. Below are Kaplan-Meier 12-yr estimates for patients with HER2 negative tumors by trial and chemotherapy stratum and for those with high-grade tumours, as an example of high-risk feature (Table). There is an emerging OS benefit for E+OFS vs T+OFS in pts with HER2 negative tumors who received chemotherapy in both trials.In pts with HER2-negative tumors, clinically-relevant outcome benefits were also seen in other high-risk subgroups: 12-yr DFS and OS were improved by 7.4% and 2.7%, respectively, in pts with pN1a disease, and by 10.6% and 4.5%, respectively, in those with tumors & gt;2cm. Conclusions After 13 years MFU, adjuvant E+OFS, as compared with T+OFS, shows a sustained reduction in the risk of recurrence, more consistent in HER2 negative patients and in those with high-risk disease features, e.g., indication for adjuvant chemotherapy and G3 tumors. Oncologists may use this information to discuss potential benefits of E+OFS with individual patients. Follow-up continues for 5 additional years. Chemotherapy HER2-negativeSOFTT+OFS (n=424)E+OFS (n=411)Absolute difference12-yr DFS67.4%74.1%6.7%12-yr OS81.1%84.4%3.3%TEXTT+OFS (n=656)E+OFS (n=661)Absolute difference12-yr DFS71.0%78.4%7.4%12-yr OS83.5%86.8%3.3%No chemotherapy HER2-negativeSOFTT+OFS (n=445)E+OFS (n=447)Absolute difference12-yr DFS82.9%88.2%5.3%12-yr OS96.1%96.9%0.9%TEXTT+OFS (n=499)E+OFS (n=492)Absolute difference12-yr DFS80.2%86.7%6.5%12-yr OS95.9%96.2%0.2%G3 HER2-negativeT+OFS (n=423)E+OFS (n=405)Absolute difference12-yr DFS62.7%73.0%10.3%12-yr OS78.1%83.6%5.5% Citation Format: Meredith M Regan, Barbara A Walley, Gini F Fleming, Prudence A Francis, Marco A Colleoni, István Láng, Henry L Gómez, Carlo A Tondini, Harold J Burstein, Matthew P Goetz, Eva M Ciruelos, Vered Stearns, Hervé R Bonnefoi, Silvana Martino, Charles E Geyer, Jr, Claudio Chini, Alessandro M Minisini, Simon Spazzapan, Thomas Ruhstaller, Eric P Winer, Barbara Ruepp, Sherene Loi, Alan S Coates, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D Gelber, Olivia Pagani. Randomized comparison of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor exemestane (E) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) vs tamoxifen (T) plus OFS in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (BC): update of the combined TEXT and SOFT trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS2-05.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...